Gay Marriage and the War on Terror
I know it’s not popular with a majority of the public or with the Presidential candidates, but I support gay marriage.
With the exception of Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel, both of who have as much chance of being President as the late Leo Durocher, even the supposedly “progressive” leading Democrats at last week’s Gay and Lesbian Forum dared not back same-sex marriage, fumbling with their answers and looking away from the camera. Who knows what they really think? (Dodd and Biden didn’t even deign to show up.)
On the Republican side, no one is going anywhere near gay marriage, although, ironically, the decidedly urban Rudy Giuliani seems more genuinely comfortable with gay people than any Presidential candidate of recent memory. Nevertheless, he now opposes same-sex marriage and cloaks his deeper feelings, whatever they may be, behind legal analysis and states rights. In short, he’s a politician running for office.
But I don’t have to do that. I support gay marriage and the War on Terror and I believe my views on both to be linked in a matter that is not tenuous. But I’ll get to that – first allow me to discuss marriage. I am not going to deal here with current legislation like DOMA (the Defense of Marriage Act), nor with the “let’s leave it to the states” doctrine, which seems more like the premise for a sitcom given the millions of people commuting daily between places like New York and New Jersey. Nor will I get into my views on how gay marriage should be achieved – legislative versus judicial. Although I recognize valid arguments on both sides, I don’t feel qualified. I am going to express my gut on the matter.
For me gay marriage is a human rights issue. It is a natural development of the civil rights movement of the fifties and sixties, part of extending to gay people what was extended to African-Americans at that time. Simple equality. To hold those beliefs, of course, you must believe that homosexuality is not an evil, but another part of nature. I see homosexuality that way for two reasons. One – personal: I have lived most of my life in New York and Los Angeles and known and worked with countless homosexuals, a number of them now with children. I found these people to be good and bad human beings, good and bad parents, to the same degree heterosexuals are – no difference. In other words, they are normal people. Two – scientific: It is becoming increasingly clear that sexual preference, although in part environmentally influenced, is largely fixed at birth chemically (fetal baths, etc.). It is also clear that it is virtually immutable. Attempts to change sexual preference have been utter failures. Meanwhile, homosexuality appears in animals with some frequency. It seems safe to conclude it is, in essence, part of nature.
Now I realize that many still deem it a sin from their core religious beliefs. Those people should be – indeed are – free to hold those beliefs within the contexts of their religions. Many others, however, do not hold those beliefs and it is unfair – a violation of the separation of church and state, if you will – to enact laws based on the reputed sinfulness of homosexuality. Precluding gays from marrying is at least in part that. We are denying them the rights we all have simply because they are homosexual – an act of discrimination. (Yes, I realize domestic partnership legislation is almost a done deal, but the word marriage still carries with it strong symbolic significance of social acceptance.)
And, yes, too I know a significant group still regards gay marriage as a threat to marriage itself. If that is so, then marriage is in worse shape than is popularly believed. Actually, it seems to me the reverse is more likely true. Gay marriage should strengthen marriage because it will bring homosexuals more closely into the fold of the family and into the fabric of everyday life. If we are religious or spiritual people of any sort, we should have empathy and sympathy for the desire of two individuals – gay or straight – to commit to each other for life. We should see it as a good, not as some dangerous plot to undermine our social structure or as the harbinger of polygamy (when it is again more likely the reverse).
All that said, I doubt I will be voting in 2008 because of the candidate’s stand on same-sex marriage and not just because (see above) it is difficult to determine what those candidates really think on the issue. Those of us concerned about human rights, about the separation of church and state, about gay rights and women’s rights, about democracy itself, have bigger fish to fry – the War on Terror. And here is the connection in my belief system.
Because I am such an adamant adherent of gay rights, women’s rights, human rights – the values that evolved out of the Enlightenment – I have to vote for the candidate I think will best carry forth that war (by whatever means appropriate at the moment) to defend those Enlightenment values. This means, unless I am very lucky, that I will not always love that person in all areas. Indeed, I may have to swallow some very bitter pills, but these are serious times, by far the most serious of my lifetime. And I was born at the end of World War II.
I never cease to be amazed – and perhaps it is my own myopia – that my former colleagues on the Left can be blind to this situation. They act as if the threat is not real and is only a blip caused by a post 9/11 overreaction by George Bush, thus ignoring virtually all of Western history since the year 800, not to mention the overwhelming demographic changes of recent decades. (John Edwards – interestingly an opponent of gay marriage – recently called the “War on Terror” a bumper sticker. At least, he’s consistent.) The very people most threatened by the ideology of Islamism and the institution of Sharia law – gays, women, freethinkers – are often the very people least likely to defend themselves against it. What we have on our Left is a culture of denial equal to, if not exceeding, the German Jews of the 1930s and one that has taken the canard about all politics being local to an almost ludicrous extreme.
So, yes, I am a supporter of gay marriage and undoubtedly will remain so, since it is consistent with my values of long duration. And, yes, I will continue to agitate for it in my writing and elsewhere. But in return I call on my friends on the Left – straight or gay – to help defend that real source of liberalism the Enlightenment, because if we lose and fall under religious law, there not only will be no gay marriage, there will be no women’s rights, no freedom of the press, no basic human rights, not even – as in the case of Iran – any music.
8/02/2007
It’s Not about Marriage
I got this from a friend in New Mexico and it expresses my sentiments totally. I also don’t CARE about your sexuality or lack thereof, but please do not shove it in my face! As I said, I don’t care! Enjoy the read. The author, Dave Stoddard, is retired U.S. Border Patrol. He lives in SE ARizona.
Ordinarily I write about border related issues. But late last year I wrote a satiric article about Arizona’s Representative Jim Kolbe and I included a letter I had written to him in which I claimed that I wanted to marry my horse.
You would not believe the hate mail generated. It came from all over the world, so I am sure it struck a homosexual nerve. This article should really fire them up.
I could not care less what two consenting adults do behind closed doors. It simply does not concern me. But, keep it off my T.V., out of my schools, away from my family and out of my face. Keep it to yourself. I don’t want to know about it.
It seems that in every direction you look today the homosexual agenda is plastered everywhere promoted by the courts, the National Education Association, the ACLU, sundry special interest groups and even some apostate churches.I am sick of it. It is not normal. It is a perversion, an aberration, a deviancy and it is repugnant. It is a behavior that is dangerous and simply out of sync with natural and spiritual values.
Yet, if you are repulsed by homosexual behavior, (Notice I haven’t mentioned homosexuals. The few homosexuals I have known were and are amiable, pleasant and even likeable), but, their behavior is simply appalling.
A phobia is defined as an “unreasonable fear”. You can have an unreasonable fear of practically anything and many people have phobias. Yet, if you are disgusted by homosexual behavior you are “homophobic”. How so? Not only are you homophobic you are a bigot. Why? Since homosexuality is a behavior there is no way to look at someone and determine he or she is homosexual. It has to be communicated by word, action or clothing. The orientation must be communicated, confessed or flaunted. How can that be bigotry? It is not likely that a homo will suddenly appear and terrorize anyone. Again I ask, “Why is failure to embrace homosexual behavior a phobia?” Let’s not equate disgust, aversion, and repulsion with unreasonable fear.
I received an email from one fellow who actually believed that I wanted to marry my horse. He chastised me and stated that I couldn’t morally engage in bestiality because animals can’t give consent. However, all humans can give consent, even children. Wrong, moron! Pedophilia is not just morally wrong, it is a crime, and it is sickening and disgusting.
Another individual pointed out to me that homosexuality exists in the animal kingdom and that it is natural and therefore normal and acceptable. He used, as an example, two male penguins in a New York zoo that fell in love and hatched out an egg. (As I remember, some dude used this event to write a children’s book touting the homosexual lifestyle). Wrong Twinkletoes! It is the male penguin who spends weeks in the Antarctic cold hatching the chick while the mother forages for food. When the mother returns, the baby penguin is already hatched and then the father walks to the ocean to feed. It is the male penguin’s job to hatch the egg. Nothing homo about that.
Then I was told about the phenomenon of bulls mounting one another as evidence of “gayness” in animals. Wrong, Donkey Breath! Nothing unnatural about that either. Cattle can’t tell by sight which is the opposite sex. They are not bright enough to see a difference. Bulls are stimulated to mating behavior by pheromones. Cows in heat emit an odor that drives the bull crazy. The same is true with most mammals. Simply because a pen full of young bulls engage in mounting behavior does not mean they are homosexual bulls. It does mean that there is at least one cow close by who is in heat.
Then another told me about love. Love between humans is beautiful, natural and to be celebrated. This includes homosexual love. Wrong, Rump Ranger! Unnatural sex between humans is lust. There is huge difference between love and lust. It is so easy to get confused when values are blurred by predators and perverts preying on emotionally disturbed and vulnerable individuals. Many are damaged for a lifetime.
Then I had an example of fish that change gender. It is true that there are fish species that will literally change gender when confined in a small pool where there are none of the opposite sex. This is a mechanism provided by nature to preserve the fish specie in pools of water that have become isolated. These fish actually change their sex and they reproduce. They do this without hormone injections and surgery. It has nothing to do with “gender identity disorder”.
There is not one example of true homosexuality in the animal kingdom despite what the liberal media is telling you. But somehow, if you do not accept, endorse, and applaud homosexual behavior, you are excoriated as some kind of bigoted, homophobic Neanderthal.
It has become an issue of civil rights. They want a “civil right” to expose hetero-Americans and children to immoral, unnatural and dangerous behavior. A homosexual has every civil right I do. So, it is not about civil rights. It is not about diversity and tolerance. That is unless diversity and tolerance means that we sacrifice our convictions and beliefs on the altar of political correctness and accept homosexuality as equal to heterosexuality and not at all unnatural or immoral. To homos we must endorse it, applaud it, accept it and we cannot teach our children that it is wrong or we are bigoted homophobes and people to be scorned and ridiculed.
Recently the House of Representatives passed HR-1592, the so called “Hate Crimes Legislation”. It is currently being considered and strengthened in the Senate. Senator Kennedy, as expected, has some amendments. Soon it may be against the law to write what I have written here. It might even become illegal to voice Christian beliefs, since the Christian God has stated that homosexuality is an abomination.
President Bush has indicated that he will not sign the legislation. If he follows through and vetoes the Hate Crimes Bill, what about the next President?
Massachusetts has already legalized same sex marriage. Immediately hundreds of homos flocked to Massachusetts to get married. Then many of them went back to their home states and filed for divorce hoping that other states would recognize a same sex marriage from another state thereby legitimizing same sex marriages. If it were solely about marriage, why don’t they just stay married and be happy?
It’s not about marriage. It is not about civil rights, diversity or any related thing. It is about recognition, validation, acceptance, legitimizing and embracing homosexuality and eliminating existing values and mores. Homosexuals want to feel good about themselves. They want to be celebrated and applauded based on a behavior. They can’t feel good about themselves until they leave that behavior. It is not genetic. If there were a genetic factor, it would have been eliminated from the gene pool many generations ago. It is not a hormonal imbalance, (unless hormones are being injected).
Homosexuality is a spiritual disease. It can be cured spiritually and there are many former homosexuals attesting to this fact.
Amen Brothers and Sisters, TIFN!!!
Pretty much my view although less inclined to make the link to civil rights.
I’d like to get the gov out of the marriage business all together.
The only reason to license marriage is to discriminate against some kinds of marriage.
When Oak Park Illinois created a civil unions list for employess to sign and claim health insurance benefits, the one person who really needed it was the single parent with the adult disablied child who tried to claim the child as partner.
The village discriminated against that union.
So maybe it’s best to get gov out of the marriage licensing business all together and let individuals sign contracts.
It they want those contracts blessed…then find a Church.
Gay marriage is one aspect of the gay life.
The WOT must be won for the gay life to have any survivability. Given the choice, I’d say go for winning the WOT even if that means backburner for the marriage issue. You can’t get married if you’re dead.
There was a discussion some time back on Volokh Conspiracy about gay marriage. One commenter-me-mentioned that some activists see gay marriage as a weapon in their assault on marriage in general. Most other commenters scoffed. One, who had time to do his homework, came up with a list of cites where certain gay marriage advocates were on record as hoping it would serve to weaken marriage in general.
Gay marriage advocates could improve their prospects by getting certain of their colleagues to shut up.
Littlefield – Every single argument you made about gays is the same arguments the religious right made about blacks and their rights (voting, inter-racial marriages, civil rights, etc). The only thing new is the religious right have decided to hide behind some FLWC red menance of a homo “agenda”. Its the “wedge” issue made famous by Karl Rove and company. The only problem with this tactic as has become obvious is that it requires those on either side to hate each other rather than work to a compromise and resolution.
BTW, you do “care” about what goes on behind closed doors. Your agenda is to eradicate homosexuality. You give it away by declaring homosexuality a spritual disease that can be “cured”. It is a religious issue but the religious right “agenda” can’t frame it that way because then moderates, liberals and even constitutional conservatives will come out against you as this would be an obvious seperation of church/state issue.
There is nothing illegal with being a bigot. You are a bigot if you regards or treats the members of a group with hatred and intolerance. You hate and can’t tolerate homosexuals based on your religious teachings. Super. I’m sure Jesus would be proud…
I don’t know about weakening marriage but weakening religion’s influence public life certainly be the case. Marriage is more than just a contract, it is a sacrament. That is why so many religious people oppose it. That is also why so many gays are not satisfied with civil unions. If they can get the word marriage to define their unions, they can open the door to litigating churches who refuse to “marry” homosexual couples on the grounds of discrimination. This will also enable them to further the agenda of enforcing the thought crime against believing gay sex is an abonimation before God. Clergy then can be locked up for their thoughts and ideas and society will be fully secular.
For Pete’s sake — let the government issue civil partnerships to any two who want them. And let the churches solemnize whatever they deem right, and call it marriage.
It may lead to a bit of church-jumping, but if what the churches do makes their members uncomfortable – be it by permission, or refusal to permit – let the parishioners vote with their feet.
Simon does not even understand the enlightenment. Does he really believe that Hobbes, Locke, or the Founders of this country believed in Woman’s rights? Gay Rights? He believes in them and that is ok but please don’t tell me that even John Mill believed in Gay rights. The left makes things up and wants us to believe that there is some basis to their own beliefs.
Be careful what you wish for. Right now, gays can already have a private religious ceremony if they wish, and the state is not involved. They also can, via contract, secure most of the mutual obligations and rights of married folk. And, if they decide to split, they can do it, again, without any involvement of the state.
Right now, gays are immune to the “marriage tax” and divorce law.
I don’t know about weakening marriage but weakening religion’s influence public life certainly be the case. Marriage is more than just a contract, it is a sacrament.
With the exception of the Catholic and Christian Orthodox Churches, marriage is not considered a sacrament – certainly not in the Baptist church, nor any other proetestant church, for that matter. Probably in the LDS Church – I don’t know.
My point? Get your facts straight. Here are the Sacraments:
1. Baptism
2. Holy communion (or the Eucharist)
Catholics and Orthodox Christians add:
- Reconciliation (or confession and the forgiveness of sins)
- Confirmation
- Marriage
- Holy Orders (or ordination)
- Anointing of the Sick (or last rites)
gays are immune to the “marriage tax” and divorce law.
They are also immune from being able to sponsor foreign-born partners. They are also immune to the rule that allows them to pass on their property tax free to their partner. I could go on for pages about the things gay partners cannot do that straight people can, and how contracts solve very little.
So to fight the impossition of Islamic law we have to support politicians who believe in a) the impossition of Christian law and b) a misguided war that radicalises more Muslims?
Sorry, but that’s just plain STUPID.
The main danger to The Enlightenment is the Republican Christain Right, not Islam.
After reading what you wrote I now understand how you wound up at politicodotcom and why I have distrusted you for years.
[That's a different Roger Simon, Frank -- ed.]
Baptists and Pentecostals, among other Christian denominations, choose to use the word ordinance, rather than sacrament because of certain sacerdotal ideas that the word sacrament has gathered to itself.[1] These Churches argue that the word ordinance points to the ordaining authority of Christ which lies behind the practice.[2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacrament#Lutheran_and_Anglican_views
Sacrament/ordinance, tomayto/tomahto. I’m sure that the Protestants wouldn’t appreciate some litigant difining what they consider an ordinant for them.
Mike: “Does he really believe that Hobbes, Locke, or the Founders of this country believed in Woman’s rights? Gay Rights? He believes in them and that is ok but please don’t tell me that even John Mill believed in Gay rights.”
Well, many of the Founders also believed in slavery. Certainly almost none of them believed that white and black people were equal or should get married, or that women should vote. But the Enlightenment wasn’t about laying down beliefs, it was about laying down standards of reasonable thought and argument. So it makes no sense to reject equal rights for gays on the grounds that they weren’t viable during the Enlightenment. That is exactly the kind of dogma that the Enlightenment stood against, and that opponents of gay marriage stand for.
Someone once pointed out that if you allow Civil Unions, crazy bastards would be getting them for all sorts of reasons unrelated to marriage.
So?
When I came to the Netherlands, I discovered that anyone could get a “contractual relationship” for basically any reason they wanted. This really opened my eyes: In my view, the only thing a government should bother itself with is the legal aspects of relationships. Joint accounts, division of property during a divorce, etc.
Marriage, as people are fond of saying, is a sacred sacrament between man, woman and god. So keep it that way. As such, there should be a seperation between church and state. I oppose a blanket “gay marriage” because I don’t believe that the US government has the power to inform the vatican of what is an acceptable form of marriage. By the same token, if Anglicans decide that god loves gay marriages, the US government has no right to tell them that they are wrong.
Allow Civil Unions for anyone that wants them (even if that means that two, straight friends who are helping raise a little girl decide to form a Civil Union to protect their rights. They’re adult to know how they want to define their relationships), and let religious institutions decide what marriage really means.
Honestly, we expect government to do too much. They are not arbiters of morality. They are arbiters of law. I can’t understand why conservatives want the government to keep out of the markets, but hold our hands when we commit to one another. Craziness.
Seems the point may be missed – which seems to me to be – OMG the scary Islamofascist are coming! Jeez people…Wake up! Stop being so damn scared! Quit pissing your bed, get out of it, a realize that, at least for myself, if ANYBODY tries coming to America to “invade” us – I know me and mine won’t be waiting under a bed for the government to protect me. I’ll be on the “front lines” protecting America with every other patriot. Only WE can allow something like this to happen…and by allowing this mis-administration to grind our military in to dust in Iraq, we’re helping it happen. Protect AMERICA, get off the oil teat, and stop selling arms to people in the middle east.
“…thus ignoring virtually all of Western history since the year 800.”
I am not nearly as concerned with what the Islamists are threatening us with…poverty stricken & so far away…as I am with what the Evangelicals are threatening right here in our midst. Is anyone else as eagerly looking forward to the end of the World…to an Armageddon where only “the faithful” will emerge triumphant, as the christians declare…? This is what the christians PROMISE us is their goal, their Apotheosis, the fulfillment of their prophecies. World War in the Middle East and everyone (‘cept them) “gets theirs”. And they’re right in our country and you people have voted them into office. No, can’t take foreign threats literally because I’m too busy fearing those you’ve supported with the exact same purpose!
As for the suggestion that we might lose the war on terror and end up under Islamic law…it’s not even worth a snicker. When we lost in Vietnam we didn’t become a Communist country. I’m sure that Islamic terrorists do want to impose sharia on the United States…and I want to be King of Spain, but for some reason the Spanish royal family doesn’t seem that worried about me.
Roger -
I agree with you 100%. I am a previous card carrying hippy liberal who became “enlightened” on 09/11. I am for gay marriage & a woman’s right to chose. But my # 1 concern is the WOT which should be renamed to the War Against World Wide Islamic Domination. Sharia will remove all of our rights to debate & have a free society. Take this seriously folks – the Islamists proclaim their goal every day all over the world.
NappieRed
” They are also immune to the rule that allows them to pass on their property tax free to their partner.”
Wrong. This also can be done by contract.
Folks folks folks—let’s get one thing straight (so to speak): MOST mainstream gay people in America (ie, your neighbor, your kid’s teacher, your pastor, your parent) do not give a rat’s behind whether or not Gay Marriage as it were becomes legal. It’s not about marriage. It’s about rights, plain and simple. So, in this deeply Christian, deeply traditional country, let’s just make the playing field even: call it civil unions, but attach to it the same inherent benefits. If I get hit by a car in Georgia, I for one don’t want anyone but my partner making decisions for me: to not allow this is an utterly immoral, unethical disgrace.
Beyond this, bigots abound, and that cannot be helped; bigotry is not illegal until someone gets hurts. What does fly in the face of human rights–and what this country was built on — is taxation without representation. Therefore, if you don’t want to give me the same rights, don’t tax me at the same rate.
Finally: all you small-minded wingnuts out there who have destroyed the best of the GOP’s intentions by subsuming it in hatred and fear…You don’t have to like gays, or approve of us. You don’t have to like Blacks or Jews either (and you probably don’t). But you do have to give us equal rights under the law. Colored waterfountains are, thankfully, long gone.
In terms of our sexuality and not wanting what “we do” thrown in your face: I don’t much want to see what you do thrown in my face either, but I have no choice—it’s everywhere, from television to radio to magazines.
Finally, to quote Vice president Cheney: freedom means freedom for everyone. You can’t cherry pick. That is what this is all about. The man gets it.
Vaya con dios.
Tomemos.
The VC didn’t have nukes and access to container ships, just to think of one item.
And the VC didn’t have courts enforcing special privileges for a group which is successfully combining threats of violence with first place in the we’re-being-victims competition.
“not even – as in the case of Iran – any music. ”
Where on earth did you get the idea that Iran doesn’t allow music? Are you confusing them with their enemy, the Taliban?
BRAVO Roger. PLEASE RUN FOR OFFICE.
Exactly how will the Islamists invade and take over our country and then impose Sharia law?
“by whatever mean appropriate”….the difference between reason and insanity.
capelza, you may not have been following the struggle over music in post-Khomeini Iran. The banning of music has been prevalent. I would suggest you begin you investigation here:
http://www.freemuse.org/sw19279.asp
tballou: the answer to your question is the simple word demography, which already seems to be taking its toll in Europe. Of course, the struggle is on. We shall see.
” They are also immune to the rule that allows them to pass on their property tax free to their partner.”
Wrong. This also can be done by contract.
Not tax-free, it can’t.
Richard Aubrey:
I agree with you on point one. On point two, however, I do wonder how you can even see the keyboard with your head so deeply embedded in such an impossible part of your anatomy.
Gays aren’t threatening violence any more than right-to-lifers are. Oh…wait a minute….Aren’t they those nice Christians who blow up Planned Parenthoods? Right, I thought so….
I oppose a blanket “gay marriage” because I don’t believe that the US government has the power to inform the vatican of what is an acceptable form of marriage. By the same token, if Anglicans decide that god loves gay marriages, the US government has no right to tell them that they are wrong.
Amen.
Richard Aubrey:
The VC didn’t have nukes and access to container ships, just to think of one item.
What a coincidence! Neither did the country we declared war on!
And the VC didn’t have courts enforcing special privileges for a group which is successfully combining threats of violence with first place in the we’re-being-victims competition.
I haven’t the slightest idea what you’re talking about. Are you talking about gays, or Islamic terrorists? Either way it makes no sense.
mishu:
If they can get the word marriage to define their unions, they can open the door to litigating churches who refuse to “marry” homosexual couples on the grounds of discrimination.
What nonsense. Catholic churches won’t marry people who have been divorced. Orthodox Jewish rabbis won’t marry Jews to non-Jews. They’re not getting prosecuted for discrimination. Separation of church and state means not letting the state definition of “marriage” interfere with the church definition, and vice versa.
Point taken. But can we at least start fighting back against the real enemy now?
http://www.asecondlookatthesaudis.com
Who is this guy, and what has he done with Roger Simon?! The few times that I’ve read Simon before, he’s been insightful and coherent. This is a random list of leaps in logic and talking points.
“Separation of church and state means not letting the state definition of “marriage” interfere with the church definition, and vice versa.”
The ONLY way to not let the states definition of “marriage” not interfere with the church’s definition is to do all marriages though contracts. Standard templates, like the creative commons for copyright, could be made available from the government and faith(or identity) groups and they can be mashed up and/or modified.
Bravo, Roger.
Why are people saying that marriage is a religious institution? People are forgetting that what we’re talking about is marriage under civil law, which has nothing to do with what any church, mosque, or synogogue considers marriage. The marriage we’re talking about does confer specific legal benefits and are unavailable to gays. Contracts won’t do it, because the law doesn’t recognize a contract over such subjects as spousal immunity privilege in court or probate priority for those who die intestate.
Why is this so confusing for people? Marriage under law is different from marriage under a church. They have almost nothing to do with each other aside from the word “marriage.” It’s like some bad sitcom where the moron character is getting all bent out of shape–”Marriage is between a man, a woman, and god!” No it’s not, you moron.
I usually agree with R.Simon, but not this time. He and I both know many gay people who are just as good and bad as non-gay. BUT, there are plenty of people in this country who don’t. They’ve never been to New York or LA or SF, nor do they want to come here. And legalizing gay marriage is insulting to them. They don’t want their children exposed to homosexuality as a norm. The harder gay activists push these people, the more they mobilize, and the more gay marriage becomes a central issue in US politics.
Now, THAT is silly. Don’t we have more serious problems in this country?
R.Simon wants this country to be united around gay rights. It will never happen. And fortunately, Enlightenment is not just about gay rights – it is about things far more important, and relevant to far many people, than allowing gays to marry. We have bigger things to protect. A person who wants to see this country united in the face of whatever threat, should chose a different issue to be adamant about.
Better Sharia than you nut-jobs!
Attempts to change sexual preference have been utter failures. Meanwhile, homosexuality appears in animals with some frequency.
As they used to say at lead the old Monty Python shows, ” You’re a looney” I would like to see links to the aforementioned failure of attempts to change because the peculiar phenomenon extant on the way too lib college campi today are the lesbians for a day that return to heteronormative lives after graduation. Animals? links Please
They’ve never been to New York or LA or SF, nor do they want to come here. And legalizing gay marriage is insulting to them.
Hmm, yes, that poses a dilemma since it would be terrible to make a law that some people don’t like. On the other hand, being unable to marry like anyone else is insulting to gay people (and millions of fair-minded people all over the country), plus it’s unconstitutional. HOW WILL WE EVER CHOOSE??
Conspicuously missing from your list of groups “most threatened by the ideology of Islamism and the institution of Sharia law – gays, women, freethinkers” is, of course, the most obvious target: Israel. Why is that? I suspect deception by misdirection.
I’ll gladly join your struggle against Islamofascism the day you join my struggle against Judeofascism. Is it a deal?
Everett Littlefield is the best copier and paster in the history of the blogosphere.
Everett Littlefield loves to post the same diatribe everywhere…. WORD FOR WORD. It only has to loosely fit what he’s responding to. Hell, he doesn’t have to even be responding to anything:
http://sfbay.craigslist.org/sfc/rnr/395575667.html
Craigslist posts are a desperate cry for attention dude.
Finally somebody has begun to articulate the right wing’s passion for the WOT. What is it you conservatives like most, the dog collars, waterboarding and piles of naked men? Or is it the whole flag draped crucifix-missile as phallus symbolism that gets you so hot?
“GWOT”= support for equal rights! Mr Simon, you are stretching your thesis. Give up all our rights in the name of fighting “islamicfascists”. There appears to be a bogeyman under every bed.
You sure you want that Grace?
Your arguments for homosexuals also apply for child sexual predators. Expressing sexuality is a behavior. Society decides what behaviors are acceptable. If we accept an unnatural sexual act, we move one step toward to accepting all sexual behaviors. It does not matter if certain people are predisposed to being homosexual. Are we willing to accept people predisposed to murder because it was in their genes?
Seems to me that sex in the animal kingdom or the human kingdom is for procreation. Without hetero, the human race would disappear. Sounds like a good enough reason to be straight to me. Same with the animals, they go queer, no more steaks…
Let’s see… The government should get out of the marriage business. Hmmm… Cuba, the old USSR, China (Communist), and all the other offically atheistic societies have (had) state sanctioned marrriage, Lo and behold, between man and a women! Also, notably, none of the officially atheistic states allow polygamy.
If marriage is about children, homosexual marriage makes zero sense at all whatsoever. IMHO, that’s what marriage is really all about. Love, mutual feelings, medical benefits, tax breaks, etc, are all secondary. All societies need children in order to survive more than one generation. And marriage, between a man and a women, where the man can be reasonably certain the child is his, and the woman reasonably certain the man will stick around to support them, seems to be the best way to raise a healthy society.
Reading these comments is like visiting a zoo of the left and right. Stalin’s Crayon meet John…. you are the same person.
Art:
“Your arguments for homosexuals also apply for child sexual predators.”
Um, no, because children are legally incapable of consenting to sex. Two adults should be able to have whatever relationship they please.
“Expressing sexuality is a behavior. Society decides what behaviors are acceptable.”
Yes, which is why we don’t burn gay people at the stake. Some of us think that it’s simply consistent and logical to extend marriage rights to gays.
“If we accept an unnatural sexual act, we move one step toward to accepting all sexual behaviors.”
Since when? And why is it unnatural? And why is unnatural necessarily bad?
“It does not matter if certain people are predisposed to being homosexual.”
Why not? What does it harm society? I’m not worried about my kids being exposed to gay culture, because if they’re gay, they’re gay. If they’re straight, they’re straight. Seeing two men holding hands isn’t going to “infect” them if they’re really interested in girls.
“Are we willing to accept people predisposed to murder because it was in their genes?”
You mean aside from the obvious fact that murder is unjustified killing? Since when did gay relationships become as bad as murder?
Harold:
“If marriage is about children, homosexual marriage makes zero sense at all whatsoever. IMHO, that’s what marriage is really all about. Love, mutual feelings, medical benefits, tax breaks, etc, are all secondary. All societies need children in order to survive more than one generation.”
If what you say is true, we shouldn’t allow sterile men or octogenarian women to marry either. You’re right that procreation is important, but marriage is hardly the guarantor of kids. People these days seem to be popping babies out left and right, no marriage needed!
And really, it’s not about love? C’mon, man, marriage is all about love. Well, at least to start
. What else compels us to go out and tell a non-blood-relative “You’re going to be my family and you’re going to get half if we split up”? We get all worked up about this because it is important stuff; love and marriage are important. I originally come from a culture where things like arranged marriages are still common. They’re actually very common around the world, but even in those cultures marriage for love is romanticized and celebrated. I am certainly a devotee of American-style marriage (for love), which is why I don’t see any compelling reason to stop gay people from enjoying marriage. If they love each other enough to put themselves at each other’s legal and financial mercies (which is what civil marriage is), have at it.
And seriously, do we really want to encourage gay people *not* to stay together? Doesn’t it make sense to encourage gay people to stay monogamous? At the very least marriage encourages monogamy because they’ll pay financially for divorces like the rest of us.
Harold:
If marriage is about children, homosexual marriage makes zero sense at all whatsoever. IMHO, that’s what marriage is really all about.
Absolutely! So I’m sure you’re in favor of giving tax breaks in proportion to the number of children a couple has. No children, no tax advantages; heck, the marriage should just be annulled as a waste of time.
Also, now we are doing what China and Cuba do? You people make my head spin.
Art:
Your arguments for homosexuals also apply for child sexual predators. … Are we willing to accept people predisposed to murder because it was in their genes?
Um, yes, that’s a very good comparison. Except that homosexuality is between consenting adults, it doesn’t victimize anyone, and you’re completely insane.
Aaron, that’s not the best part. Check out the picture at the bottom of that Craig’s List ad. Methinks Everett doth protest too much.
There is a bit of history since 800 AD that quite a few of us liberals-who-think-the-WOT-is-a-joke (which it is) do remember. Its called the scientific and industrial revolution – you know that one where Europe and North America developed industry and thus armaments all the way up to nuclear weapons. Germany in the 1930s was a world power, quite capable of ruling the world. To argue that a handful of third-world, non-militarized, Islamic countries pose a similar threat to western civilization is absurd.
There is a bit of history since 1950 AD that quite a few of us liberals-who-think-that-islamic-terrorists-are-not-a-joke (which they’re not) do remember. Its called the advent of guerilla tactics with marxist revolutionaries, the frightening adoption of suicide missions as a military methodology, the recent breakdown of security in nations with nuclear assets, the relative availability of information and technology available for cheap production of conventional, chemical and biological weaponry (unintentionally complicit with our near-nonexistant borders), the relative ease and compactness with which the aforementioned may be transported, the advancing progress of western capitulation to sharia law, and the inculcation of multiple generations with the shahid/shahada death-over-shame ideal based on the military defeat of all surrounding nations in the main defensive operation of the arab-israel war of 1967. To pose a frankly racist and willfully ignorant argument that a handful of idealists based on support of ideologies prevalent in third-world, Islamic countries are not capable of posing a threat to western civilization is absurd.
Roger: It’s naive to think that this idea of civil rights exists in a vacuum. See Maryland’s recent State School Board ruling, and a federal judge’s opinion in the case of David Parker in Mass. The prevailing parties is both argue it is the right of the state or the district to “educate” a child against parents’ wishes with regard to issues of orientation, gender identity, etc.
I’m not for discrimination against homosexuality. Homosexuals, transgenders, etc. are free to engage in the lifestyle of choice.
But it is folly not to think that changing the very meaning and essence of a word won’t involve ramifications far beyond what you see as the “rights” of homosexuals.
I think that many folks are too smart for their own good. Many view the Constitution and our laws as a fountain from which to drink–each of us fighting for our rights and privileges. But governments are instituted among men to protect the health and longevity of a civilization…to provide for common bonds.
If you can prove to me how homosexuality is best or even of benefit for society, I will reconsider your argument. But other than fulfilling ones own desires, I fail to see how granting alternative unions promotes the long term best interests of a community, let alone a nation.
In following your logic, I fail to see how you can possibly draw a line at limiting marriage to a union of two when you change the very definition of marriage by altering it to include opposite sexes. Why not three, or four, or relatives? It makes no legal or rational sense for you to try and sell that you may destroy one branch of the definition, but not the other.
Can islamic terrorists hurt or kill westerners? Of course. There is no point in debating what has happened and could happen again. That may be relevent to our personal security, but it has nothing to do with protection of our freedoms and values. The point of this essay was that the enlightment values of our entire society are at risk of being replaced by Sharia law. This could only happen if we were conquered militarily and our constitution replaced (absurd) or if there were an internal, political revolution to fundamentally change our government. A revolution by whom? American islamicists? Equally absurd. Even in western Europe, there is no significant islamic political movement capable of executing enough power to threaten fundamental enlightment values of our societies.
Just because it is between two consenting adults does not make it right. No unnatural sexual behavior? With that argument, sex between two adult brothers, two sisters, a brother and a sister, a mother and daughter or even a family threesome is acceptable. Everything goes. I guess if you can get consent from you dog or cat. Let them all have their civil rights. Give them their marriage rights to boot.
And you call me insane?
I live in provencial NYC and a couple of years back I would send to a longtime friend who is gay articles/photos relating to the real-world treatment of homosexuals under Islam. (he was always saying he was too busy to bother finding out) After months of taking the time to send these items to my friend he ended up saying to me “Sometimes I think you’re doing this just to be different.”
As if pointing out the horrific treatment homosexuals endure when living under Sharia Rule of Law was somehow an odd thing to do.
I was heartbroken since all gays I had known for years turned out not to care one iota about the treatment of homosexuals under Islam. All they care about is getting theirs and nothing about anyone else!
At this point I could care less about gay in America; it isn’t Enlightenment or Classical Liberalism which is spoken it is emotional blackmail used as a means to dictate the body politic.
The last thing I said to my former friend was that should he ever find himself in some American gay gulag so often spouted by the ‘fear-mongers’ that I would be the first one in figthing to get him freed!
By the way, for the very reason that gays could care less about anything but themselves is the very reason why the other emotional blackmailer ie feminism, is dead.
Actually Snug up until the early part of the 20th century marriages were arranged precisely for the purposes of procreation and had nothing to do with love.
That said, some men love boys however this does not justify reason for man-child marriages any more than my loving my dog justifies my desire to marry my dog.
“The main danger to Enlightenment is the Republican Christian Right, not Islam”
Frank you sound just like my friend and his groupthink; it is this type of freakazoid Enlightened ‘fear of some American gay gulag’ thinking which gave me reason not to care one wit about Gay America.
That may be relevent to our personal security, but it has nothing to do with protection of our freedoms and values.
How the hell are you supposed to personally protect yourself against a plane flying into a building? How are you supposed to personally protect yourself from a bomb going off in a market? Don’t you realize that these activities not only kill people at random, the demoralize the public and are a far greater threat to are way of life than your tax dodge. The thing is that even if your get your tax dodge, you get your hospital visits, end of life decisions, all the same benefits under a conventional marriage, you still won’t be satified if it’s called a civil union and you’ll still think you live under tyrrany. What a joke!
I was heartbroken since all gays I had known for years turned out not to care one iota about the treatment of homosexuals under Islam. All they care about is getting theirs and nothing about anyone else!
This sums it up perfectly. I notice noone said a peep when I posted the link about the two gay guys getting hanged in Iran. Mind you, that was not some random act of violence or a “hate crime”, that was an institutionalized act of jurisprudence under sharia law. Wake up!
I think your point is well taken. I am curious as to how liberals separate these issues in their minds. My guess is that they assume that as the Muslim population in our country grows they will, as have other ethnic groups before us, become more like us and separate religion and public policy. I suspect that this is wishful thinking, assuming the issue is salient enough to prompt thought. As to how it works in other countries I would imagine the issue is subsumed under respect for other countries’ ways of life and respect for their sovereignty. After all, it is no contradiction for Dennis Kussinich (spelling?) to say that he supports gay marriage at home but doesn’t support interfering in other countries’ affairs over the issue.
This later seems a defensible position. How would you answer it?
Art – by what definition makes it not right? You can’t argue that by resorting to some slippery slope argument that allowing same sex relations should necessarily result in acceptance of all sexual relations.
Anyways, regarding incest, the only reason it should morally be prohibited is because it affects another person (namely a child resulting from that union, since incest sometimes leads to genetic defects). Now this may offend you (and it will if you follow any major religion) but this country wasn’t founded on religious morals but on the ideals of the Enlightenment, which is that a just society arises from equal treatment of everyone. If your only retort is that it is unnatural then you’ve already lost, since laws and morality are meant to take us above our basic natures (murder for revenge could be considered natural).
This is indeed one of the most shocking travesties I’ve ever seen. In 1992, Pat Buchanan destroyed the GOP’s chance for reelection by inciting fear and hatred among his party’s members. So long as this country agrees to cherry pick where freedom is concerned, we’ll never have a moral and ethical leg to stand on.
The fact of the matter is, it needn’t be called marriage. It’s about Rights of Man (to coin a phrase). You can hate it; find it repulsive; keep your children away from gays; keep your children away from Blacks; keep your children away from Jews; keep your children away from Mormons. It’s small-minded and wildly dangerous. Again: if you don’t want to give gays the same rights (and call it whatever you want to call it), fine. Just don’t tax them at the same rate. Remember: Nazi Germany taxed its Jews at the same rate, after it stripped them of every God-given right they had. What’s the difference? There IS none.
Our country is better than this. Most Americans –Red or Blue — are better than this. And if the wingnuts take back the GOP on a ridiculous wedge issue based on fear and loathing, they will also be at fault for the impending loss in 2008, the way they were in 1992.
We have bigger fish to fry; we have to take care of this country and keep it safe, and our citizens safe. We cannot say one thing (freedom for all) and do another.
I would like an explanation of how exactly radical muslims have the capability to take over the U.S. and impose sharia law. They can stage horrendous attacks but I do not believe that they can actually take over our country. They certainly can take over the middle east and deny us oil but I find it hard to believe that once oil reaches $100.00/barrel that synthetic oil produced from coal, some form of biofuel or oil recovered from oil shale won’t fill the gap. I am not an american exceptionalist but I do believe that any threatened culture can find a way to not only survive but prosper. The Jihadists have stated their goal but I seriously doubt their ability to carry it out. They are certainly more than an inconvenience but we will prevail. I guess gay rights are safe for the foreseeable future.
You may not be an “American Exceptionalist,” to use the old marxist terminology, Seth, but you sound a bit like one. The answer to your question, it would seem to me however, is one word: Europe. The demography of Europe is changing greatly, as you know I’m sure, with Islamic immigrants few of whom want to assimilate. (It’s virtually against the law of their religion to do so.) If Europe does reach the tipping point in this, you will find our world, and that will include this good old US of A, to have changed incomprehensibly. None of this is simple, of course. But what little I have read from the left on this…with the exception of Paul Berman… is pretty much simple-minded. I am a former devout leftist – therefore terms like “American Exceptionalism” are no ways strange to me.
I forgot one important scenario. The jihadists take over Pakistan and get access to nuclear weapons which they use to blow up one or more U.S. cities. Do you really think we would all give up and put on burkas? We would fight back in every way we could. We are not quitters.
Roger – Thank you so much for responding to my post. It is nice to know that one is not talking to the void. If you have time please elaborate on your concerns about the future of Europe and how that will affect us. I am here to learn.
My bad to use the apparently more loaded term “American Exceptionalism” than I ever knew. I was merely attempting to point out that any culture that feels threatened will respond and this is not a uniquely American response.
Art:
I guess if you can get consent from you dog or cat.
But you can’t. That’s exactly what we’re talking about. Are you reading what you’re writing?
Roger: thanks for coming in and making a reasonable response. I’d hope you also have a response for the people on this thread who are ridiculing the idea of gay marriage.
Having said that, I think you skipped a few chapters between Muslim immigration to Europe and “our world … chang[ing] incomprehensibly.” When you say “the tipping point,” what exactly do you mean? Are you actually suggesting that Muslims–and not just Muslims, but radical, violent Muslims–are going to become the majority in a number of European powers, vote in a majority of similarly radical, violent Muslim leaders, and declare war on the United States? If so, let me revise my assessment of your response as “reasonable.” If not, what were you alluding to?
Even if you were talking about something more mild–say, that some European countries will institute some aspects of sharia law, under pressure from an increasing bloc of Muslim voters–your narrative is full of holes. The biggest of these is the idea that Muslims are more likely to influence policy because they don’t assimilate; actually, there is a direct correlation between assimilation and participation in the political process. If it is true that Muslims are somehow constitutionally unable to assimilate (and I suspect it is not, just as it isn’t for Mexican immigrants today or Italian immigrants 150 years ago), that only makes it less likely that Muslims will influence the laws and policies of the countries they immigrate to. There may be an increased number of terrorist attacks (God forbid), but that wouldn’t cause major cultural changes–it hasn’t happened in Israel, why would it happen in Europe? And again–since when have we let Europe determine our policies? We still have the death penalty and we still don’t have single-payer health care, so why in the world would we forbid homosexuality? The only risk of that happening in this country comes from radical Christianity, not radical Islam.
With all due respect, here is one problem with your argument (not the only problem, just one of them). Discussing separation of church and state has caused many a confused conversation participant because they aren’t thinking clearly, have not had the philosophical training, or perhaps some other reason.
All laws are legislated morality. Let’s not jump too quickly past this crucial point. Again: all laws are legislated morality. It is just a matter of which morality will be legislated when a law if passed, not if morality will be legislated. A law against murder is society’s way of saying that murder is morally unacceptable and will not be tolerated. Same with stealing, and with other crimes.
Religion – let’s say, Christianity for the sake of argument – stipulates that certain things be seen certain ways, and this is not dissimilar from any other world view. You could just as soon appeal to John Stuart Mill’s utilitarianism, or Dewey’s instrumentalism, or some other ethic. You might appeal to relativism, but probably wouldn’t like the outcome (anarchy or totalitarianism). But the point is that you appeal to something, and you have a world view.
To say that you may appeal to yours but I may not appeal to mine is biggoted in the highest order. The separation of church and state (as discussed in the federalist papers) means that the government will not sanction a particular denomination (as was done in Britain), mixing religious and civic titles and powers. It does not mean that those of religious persuasion cannot appeal to his or her world view in the promulgation of laws or the casting of a vote. It never did mean that. You are simply confused on this point.
tomemos: “The only risk of that happening in this country comes from radical Christianity, not radical Islam.”
Do you actually believe that cliche or are you a put on? All Christianity derives from the New Testament where it is written Christ said “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s”. HEnce making separation of church and state possible. Islam derives from the Koran where Sharia is put in ascendance and there is no state other than God’s state. But go ahead, live in your comfortable bubble.
Herschel:
The separation of church and state … does not mean that those of religious persuasion cannot appeal to his or her world view in the promulgation of laws or the casting of a vote.
Well, of course not. Who said it did? No one would presume to determine how you vote; you can vote by throwing a dart at a wall if you want. And yes, of course laws legislate morality. My morality holds that it’s wrong to discriminate against gay people, yours holds the opposite, and neither of these is better or worse based on what religion (or lack thereof) it’s based on.
But they’re not equal according to the Constitution, which is in place to declare the morality that the nation is founded on. As it happens, the 14th Amendment holds that all citizens are equal under the law So no matter what one’s religion says, the law has to conform to that. That means allowing homosexuals to marry, just as heterosexuals can.
Roger – just went to look up “American Exceptionalisn” and found that my interpretation is far more accurate than yours. I don’t quite understand how you can equate the belief that America is unique and potentially so pure that we need not worry about international law or any other conventions with Marxism. I will assume that this was an ad hominom attack and chill.
SEth,wasn’t meant as ad hominem at all. Perhaps I am older than you are and remember the term used all the time in Marxist study groups of which I was a member. (Not everything is on Google, but almost) Gist being that there was a conflict between Leftists who believed in American Exceptionalism,i. e.that America was not part of the normal economic development that lead to “world revoltuion,”(essentially the Trotskist line),and others. I may have some of this wrong- it’s been a while.
OK – Thanks Roger – I apologize. I still would like to hear more info about the consequences of an islmic Europe and how this would come about.
Arthur, I wasn’t talking about a difference between the religions; obviously, as it stands now, Muslim nations tend to be much more socially conservative than Judeo-Christian ones. I’m talking about the amount of influence the Christian right has over our government and its policies–look at who’s in the White House, for heaven’s sake–as opposed to the amount of influence the Muslim Right has, whih is almost nil. You can’t blame supporters of gay rights for being more worried about the radical Christians trying to curtail their rights–which is happening now–than about the radical Muslims who would want to curtail their rights if they took over the United States, which will NEVER HAPPEN.
You will note that a number of universities have installed footbaths to allow Muslims to pray properly.
Some schools are, without cavil from the ACLU, running involved curricula about Islam, to include role-playing and Muslim prayers. Resistance to such is condemned as Islamophobia.
Fear of violence caused many media outlets to shun publishing the motoons.
Minneapolis cabbies tried to impose a no-booze rule, although I believe the relevant authorities have stifled that for now. There’s going to be a next time.
We are not far from the point where Muslim juror nullification allows Muslims to go free after crimes against non-Muslims. There have been reports of the same in heavily hispanic areas of the southewest. “There’s an hispanic truth, as well as yours.” No reason to think the Muslims will be behind on that.
Once you or your wife or daughter have been properly schooled on how to dress at the mall, and the perps skate, you’ll be doing sharia without needing a law.
The NHS in Scotland has made it mandatory that non-Muslims may not eat at their desks during Ramadan, to avoid offending Muslims. Seen any concessions from Muslims to avoid offending non-Muslims?
In the meantime, of course, we’re fighting off the external threats while the chattering classes are biting our ankles.
Roger – I am willing to bet that I am older than you are. I was a classmate of the current President at Yale. I can spell but I can’t type very well. I’m sure you noticed. Judging from the time stamps you must be on the west coast. Do you ever drop by the East for a lecture? If so let me know I would like to hear what you have to say on a lot of issues.
Seth, you might lose that bet. Go to my blog and look at “about”. Not sure how old the current President of Yale is, although I went to the drama school way back.
As for your other question about Europe, it deserves a considerable essay. Maybe I will do one. Meanwhile, you might want to read this book on the subject. You may hate it, but it is brilliantly written.
I meant the prexy of the USA. Thanks for the book tip.
Don’t we want Muslim students to be able to pray properly? Universities also provide chapels and chaplains. What happened to “freedom of religion doesn’t mean freedom from religion”? What happened to the super-positive influence of religion that we atheists are always getting scolded with?
You’re going to have to provide links for the rest of it–preferably not, like, Townhall links–before I have any comment. I don’t really feel like drinking in cabs is a good idea, though, regardless of Muslim law.
“There’s going to be,” “Not far from the point,” “No reason to think,” do not count as arguments.
When did we decide to call them “motoons”? That’s the silliest thing I ever heard.
The WOT defends human rights against people who would execture you for your belief in them.
I agree with Dr Ellen and others above that it is a government overreach to regulate marriage. Government can give tax benefits to registered partners if they choose to. However they shouldn’t define what a marriage is. Each religion defines what its marriage rules are. Maybe I am overly simplistic – but Marriage is an aspect of religion, not a state responsibility. As an aspect of religion ammendment 1 of the bill of rights kicks in and
” Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ”
To me government defining marriage is prohibiting the free exercise of religion.
For Gay marriage – find a religion that blesses it and I think you have a constitutionally right to the free exercise of your religion and subsequent marriage.
Roger, I checked out that book description. Leave us say I’m unimpressed. From the book jacket:
“Someday soon, you might wake up to the call to prayer from a muezzin. Europeans already are.”
I guess that’s supposed to be pretty scary, like the Muslim call to prayer is some Orwellian klaxon, but I used to live across the street from a Catholic church and you could hear the bells ring pretty frequently. They never woke me up, though, so maybe the scary part is that the muezzin is too loud?
“And liberals will still tell you that ‘diversity is our strength’-while Talibanic enforcers cruise Greenwich Village burning books and barber shops …”
So liberals are going to start liking conservative values? Okay.
Can you give us any kind of reasonable argument for how Muslims are going to take over the country, rather than letting Mark Steyn do your work for you?
tomemos.
If you want links to these things, you must not get out much. “Motoons” is widely used, and your ignorance of the subject does not mean the threat of violence was non-existent.
The cabbies in Minneapolis–as I’m sure you but you are being deliberately obtuse–wanted to reject as a fare anybody with a bottle of booze in his luggage.
Chapels. The Muslims have taken over the interfaith chapel at Georgetown. They just hassle anybody else. The non-Muslims have sought other facilities.
It’s not secret about the Islamic curricula in various K-12 systems. And a Townhall link does not automatically discredit whatever the original source is, convenient as that may be for you.
The demand for links is based on one of two possibilities.
Astonishing ignorance, or, the presumption that if I don’t provide the links, the issue doesn’t have to be addressed, thus saving you some effort figuring out how to pretend there’s nothing there. And, better, my reluctance to hustle up links to something you already know means you can pretend it probably isn’t happening. But at least, for the purpose of this thread, you can pretend both that you never heard of it, and that it isn’t happening.
Unfortunately for you, when everybody else has heard of this, you look pretty silly.
Mr. Simon,
You have lost your mind.
How did you survive the Cold War being so scared?
No one on the LEFT I know doesn’t take the AQ threat seriously. It would seem more on the right don’t based on doing a U turn in Afghanistan into Iraq and allowing AQ to regroup and gain strength as the latest NIE shows.
In any event, to imply AQ will take over our country, imposing Sharia law upon us is absolutely insane. We can’t even impose anything in Iraq, yet AQ is going to control our country?
You have lost your credibility with me, sir. You should be embarrased.
So I’m astonishingly ignorant. It should be easy to educate me, then, just by including some reliable documentation. You’re already taking the trouble to talk to me.
“It’s not a secret that,” “it’s widely known”–I teach a college class on argument and research, and weasel words like that don’t pass muster.
From here this sounds like a bunch of isolated incidents, without the kind of coordination seen in, say, the campaign against the phrase “Happy Holidays.” So show me links from reliable sources that demonstrate that this is a real problem. If you can’t, I have to conclude that you’re committed to this vitally important cause up to the point where you have to lift a finger, or else that your already feeble examples are coming out of thin air.
tomemos.
I don’t think you’re as ignorant as you try to appear.
I am satisfied to see you taking this position when, for example, the issue of the cabbies has been a news story for quite some time in Minneapolis–and everybody knows it.
You can check the Powerline blog for details, including links to the local papers.
But, I expect, finding the facts there will be automatic proof that they’re not the kind of people you want to hear things from.
What does coordination have to do with it?
In Scandinavia, from sources like newspapers and bloggers, there are grossly disproportionate acts of violence against local women by Muslim immigrants.
But, having discovered what you already know is known by others quite readily, I expect you will decide the sources are questionable.
As I say, my interest at this point is not to get you to admit what you must know already, but to have you denying it in front of so many people who know it, too.
tomemos,
I can only speak to the MN cabbies:
Yes, some refused to take passengers who had a bottle of booze at the Minneapolis airport(from Duty Free, etc.).
How that will lead to the USA falling under Sharia law is beyond me.
I suspect the beaten down with fear crowd would find invading Iran, e.g., a solution to the cabbie problem.
I’d just fire the cabbies for not performing their job and tell them to sue me, but that’s me.
Sorry for interrupting. Carry on.
For those of you who are following this discussion , take a break and go over to salon.com and read some of their reaction. The left thinks Roger and neo cons of all persuasion are a bunch of deranged right wing lunatics. Well, that’s pretty much what they think all of the time but gawd forbid that anyone take those Muslim murders at their word.
Its possible that Rogers plea to the left will go unfufilled.
The commenter above who wrote this comments section is like reading a zoo of left-wing and right-wing extremists hit it right on the head. Some of the righties all upset about some homosexuals tying the knot and lefties jumping up and down because the author won’t waste his time answering their transparently disingenuous questions about jihad. What phonies.
Mishu and several other posters:
I would just like to interject some fact into this dialogue. Gay marriage and civil unions are NOT equal. This is NOT an issue of terminology or a religious institution’s right to deny recognition of gay marriage. Due to the “Defense of Marriage Act”, gay couples in a civil union will NOT have access to any federal protections of marriage. That means no Social Security survivor benefits, no benefits from the Family and Medical Leave Act. In fact there are 1,138 federal rights extended to heterosexual married couples that will be denied same-sex couples. If you believe that gay couples are fighting for “marriage” just so they can say they had a “wedding”, you are misinformed about the issue. Gay people pay the exact same amount of taxes toward the federal government’s social benefit programs and deserve equal access to their own investment. If you are interested, you can read about all 1,138 rights denied to gay couples in civil unions on the Human Rights Campaign’s website.
Aaron:
Mishu and several other posters:
I would just like to interject some fact into this dialogue. Gay marriage and civil unions are NOT equal. This is NOT an issue of terminology or a religious institution’s right to deny recognition of gay marriage. Due to the “Defense of Marriage Act”, gay couples in a civil union will NOT have access to any federal protections of marriage. That means no Social Security survivor benefits, no benefits from the Family and Medical Leave Act. In fact there are 1,138 federal rights extended to heterosexual married couples that will be denied same-sex couples. If you believe that gay couples are fighting for “marriage” just so they can say they had a “wedding”, you are misinformed about the issue. Gay people pay the exact same amount of taxes toward the federal government’s social benefit programs and deserve equal access to their own investment. If you are interested, you can read about all 1,138 rights denied to gay couples in civil unions on the Human Rights Campaign’s website.
For all of you who doubt the march of World Wide Islamic Rule, here is up to date news straight from the horse’s mouth. Consider the gravity since this “horse” is shortly going to have nukes.
http://www2.irna.ir/en/news/view/menu-234/0708142013173859.htm
President: Rule of Islam only way for salvation of mankind…
tomemos,
To specifically answer your question (“who said it did”), the original commentary made the assertion that it is a “violation of church and state” to make laws based on reputed sinfulness …” It was in the article. The author said it. I didn’t make up the position. I was only responding to it. As to my position (on which I didn’t elaborate) I oppose gay marriage, but the reasons why are much more complicated than those charicatured in the article (and by you).
The constitution never discusses marriage. Your argument is a non sequitur. I agree that all citizens are due just protection under the constitution. This point is interesting and important, but not germane. The labor of clear thought and philosophy is much more involved than throwing darts at a dart board.
For those of you who think that just because the Muslim plan for taking over the West can’t be described in 30 words or less, it must not exist (which actually says more about you than you may realize), here’s an article about a plan that was discovered right after 9/11.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID={67736123-6864-4205-B51E-BCBDEF45FCDE}
If you don’t like the source (FrontPage), fine, but that’s just shooting the messenger.
To analogize what veni is warning of let me offer an example.
Take a child about 5 or 6 years old and show her a picture of a huge house. Then show her a picture of a tiny insect about the size of ,oh, say a termite. then tell her the insect wants to eat the house and destroy it. Why she could not believe such a thing is possible.
Are we now going to argue for decades over what the intentions of the Islamic terrorists are ?
Grow up leftists.
I am a spanish gay and I support the whole article. I have a boyfriend, both we are christians (Reformed christians) and we will marry in a short period.
No way the same-sex marriage is a threat against de marriage of man and a woman and against the so-called “traditional family”. Rather the opposite, strengthens the family and the society.
In due course gay rights like same sex marriage will become widespread over the world and just like with the slavery or the left-handed persons anybody will remember of the discrimination against gay of the past.
I wish that this comment can make reflect on this issue all the people that read it and don’t support the same sex marriage.
While I acknowledge the fact that homosexuality is “just another part of nature,” I still don’t believe that the government has to allow homosexuals to marry.
I don’t care – at all – about a person’s sexuality. I live in San Francisco. If I did I’d probably have to move; however, I believe marriage is between a man and a woman – and not just because the Bible tells me so.
The assumption is that if a heterosexual couple wants to be married, then they probably want children. They’re adding to the population; and theoretically, the benefits should be enough to allow them to raise those children together and them fantastic, patriotic, loyal citizens – the whole shtick.
It’s the government’s job to ensure this happens – not to pat two men on the back and say, “Hey, great job guys.”
“Just because it is between two consenting adults does not make it right. No unnatural sexual behavior? With that argument, sex between two adult brothers, two sisters, a brother and a sister, a mother and daughter or even a family threesome is acceptable. Everything goes. I guess if you can get consent from you dog or cat. Let them all have their civil rights. Give them their marriage rights to boot.
And you call me insane?”
Yes, because your first few examples involve incest and your last one is bestiality. Are you seriously suggesting that homosexuality is comparable to those? Personally, I have no problem with incest between consenting adults, as long as they don’t have kids. Distasteful, yes, but what business is it to the government?
syn:
“Actually Snug up until the early part of the 20th century marriages were arranged precisely for the purposes of procreation and had nothing to do with love.”
Right. Which is why there is a long and celebrated tradition, in both East and West, of romantic literature and stories about love. Not everyone may have married for love, but most everyone aspired to it. Americans today marry for love–are you saying it was better to arrange marriages for procreation?
“That said, some men love boys however this does not justify reason for man-child marriages any more than my loving my dog justifies my desire to marry my dog.”
Right, because children and dogs cannot give consent. Where do people dream up these ridiculous analogies? No one is saying that pedophilia or bestiality should be legalized. We’re talking about adult human beings.
If you are unable to distinguish between a loving, nurturing relationship between two consenting, tax-paying adult citizens and the rape of animals and children, than it is YOU who should be prevented by law from ever marrying or raising children! Your equation threatens the moral fabric of our society far more than any gay couple seeking equal rights and protections from the government they are paying for.
Herschel, I have no idea how you can say that the question of equal rights under the law is not germane to the gay marriage debate. Straight people are able to marry whomever they want (with the consent of the other person, obviously); gay people are not. Inequalities like this defined the segregation era, and were struck down on 14th Amendment grounds.
And please, don’t respond by saying that gays have the right to marry anyone of the opposite sex. That’s like banning synagogues and then saying that Jews have the right to worship at any church they want.
I’m afraid that despite all the words that have been traded back and forth on the issue, I still have to confess to a lack of understanding with regards to the ‘Islamofascist threat’. Unlike most of the others questioning the validity of these concerns, I’m not assuming that such a threat is outright impossible, but I am having trouble understanding how a comparable minority can usurp political or judicial authority over the majority, which is the case here as I understand it (Or am I wrong in assuming that there are more people worldwide opposed to the institution of Sharia law than in favour of it?) I can understand how a Europe unified under Islamic rule would represent a major threat to continuing Enlightenment values in America, but the part that eludes me how that Islamic rule would come about in Europe in the first place. I’m not asking that it “be described in 30 words or less”, in fact I’d rather have a longer, more detailed response than a short summary, especially since I’ve seen several short summaries in earlier comments and I’m still unable to grasp the concepts behind them. So, could any of you please take the time to enlighten me about more than the basics of this issue?
Vayne,
The key variables are demography, commitment to a specific goal and a willingness to use violence as a political tool. In fact, the three go together in determining the forecast that Europe will fall under Islamic rule at some point in the next 100 years or so. Since it can be shown that Muslims are simply not assimilating and are reproducing more quickly than the native Europeans, it is obvious that Muslim political goals will become an increasing part of European policies, especially in a parliamentary system, which is more like a proportional representation system than what we have in the US.
So, as Muslims become a larger part of the process, it becomes crucial to understand their policy goals. As studies of British Muslims have shown, a large majority of them want to institute Sharia law in Britain. Muslims actually have it in their heads that Sharia is superior to Western civil law. Of course, I personally think Sharia law is not, but the problem is that I have very little influence over what Muslims think of their legal code. As the “program” document I linked to states, it is not that Muslims are monolithic in their interpretation of Sharia (they are not), but they do tend toward that goal and are willing to supress those differences in the greater scheme of things, much like the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks supressed their differences in the pursuit of revolution. There was an interview with the leader of an ex-Muslim group in Germany. He was asked point-blank how many Muslims in Germany adhere to “Enlightenment” values and his reply was “a few hundred, maybe a few thousand”. This is out of a population of over a million.
The third element is the willingness to use violence as a political tool. Empirical studies in Britain have shown that as the density of the Muslim penetration of a given geographic area increases, so does the crime rate. Now, crime is slightly different from political violence, but it can serve as a proxy for overall cultural willingness to utilize means outside the law to obtain a given goal, whether that be a personal goal, as in the case of crime, or a policy goal, as in the case of political intimidation and terrorism. Since the highest reward in Islam is “fighting in the way of Allah”, the use of violence in Islam is central to the ideology in a way that it really isn’t central to Western European ideology, which is more of a hedonistic ideology of enjoyment of life, rather than a glorification of a certain mode of death. This use of intimidating tactics will push even non-Sharia supporters among the native population to support Muslim policy goals, with the intention of avoiding conflict. That this intention will not satisfy Muslims is obvious, because, again in reference to Muslim theology, Islam is “to dominate and not be dominated” because Muslims have to rule wherever they are (think of the Romans, but with Caligula being the rule, not the exception, and you’ve got a reasonable approximation of Islamic ideology).
Combine these three elements over time and it is inevitable that Islam will rule over Europe unless steps are taken to remove Muslims from the area. Introducing Muslims into post-WWII Europe and expecting them not to rule is like introducing piranhas into a fish tank full of guppies and expecting the guppies to survive long-term.
As with all historical movements, this one will take a long time. For people whose time horizons are measure in months or years, their cognitive capabilities won’t allow them to see how this could happen. For people who try to forecast out decades, some of them will see it and others won’t. Some people have tried to argue that there will be a “deus ex machina” that will convince the Muslims to assimilate to European cultural norms as they grow to be a larger part of the population, which runs counter to the trend up to now and is supposed to come about by some unexplained change of heart on the part of Muslims. Sorry, I don’t plan on a “deus ex machina” in real life, that’s for the movies.
Way more than 30 words and you may disagree, but I studied many, many years of history in college and I think I have a pretty good grasp on its dynamics.
I was gay and now I am not. I did change in many ways including a very significant shift in my sexual orientation.
I don’t appreciate you generalizing my experience, along with thousands of others, with “failure.”
Those of us who refuse to identify as gay and do experience a change in sexual orientation because of moral and/or faith principles should not be categorically dismissed for political expediency in promoting an opinion and not anywhere close to scientific fact.
Sincerely,
Randy Thomas
As an ex-gay, happily married for twenty-seven years(in real way)with three sons and two daughters, I will second Randy Thomas’ objections to the generalization and politically-driven classification of homosexual behavior also. Sexual behavior is just that and nothing more -it is not a class of humanity, a birth anamoly, a new, trendy, and politically-powerful victimhood group. It is all but the last adjective.
And speaking of fascism, one would only have to have attended the Exodus (ex-gay) conference in Boston several years ago, which was surrounded, harassed, threatened physically by hundreds from homosexual groups like ACT-Up, and joined by thousands more of Cindy Sheehan’s troops who had been doing their thing on the Boston Commons that weekend, to see the true nature of the radical leftist hatred from anything and everything that has to do with our nations and civilizations’orthodox traditions -politcally, culturally, or morally.
venividivici -
Thanks for expanding further on the march of Sharia. My perspective is long term with concern for my children & grandchildren. You are right on target highlighting the short term sights of those in denial.
Gay marriage, as it exists in the US, seems to be self-contradicting. While it’s often put up as a matter of equality, it’s simply not. We don’t want all people (inebriated, incompetent, young, consanguous relationships) equally able to have a marriage and thus, gay marriage (as a civil right as opposed to natural one) is quite supportive of selective inclusion or exclusion regarding the institution of marriage. That’s not equality, so drop it.
There is absolutely no logical reason for denying gay people the right to marry. None whatsoever. It’s just bigotry.
14All,
Your statement only highlights the appalling fuzzy math that has lead us into so much cultural distress. Nietzsche prophesied about “erasing the horizons” over a century ago, supposing that man, in his supreme, mind-numbing arrogance, can change the laws of the universe if it strikes his fancy. The difference between men and women is obvious -as if that really needs to be stated. The family relationship that was established from the beginning of time is also quite, embarrassingly obvious to all but those who cannot see the forrest because of the one politically-correct tree they’ve had their nose rubbed in so much. As Nietzche learned, at the end of his sad life, babbling, drooling, and getting his diapers changed by his Nazi sister, and as Europe disastrously learned, after applying Nietzsche’s “bold assertions” in the early part of the 20th century,you cannot erase horizons and not expect to end up a bit, ridiculously lost.
I am wondering just how you see “Islamists” taking over America, given that we have the strongest military in the world; nuclear weapons; and are not afraid to use them if we have to? This is a serious question. Thank you for reading this comment.